Everything, Everything

2024: January February March April
2023: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2022: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2021: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2019: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2017: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2016: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004: J F M A M J J A S O N D
Advertising
Tuesday 7th July, 2009 19:25 Comments: 2
Enhanced in post production,
Strength measured as resistance to brushing.
Styled with natural hair extensions.
76% of 100 women tested.

You have to wonder how much you can trust these beauty product adverts, you might as well say something like:

Model is bald, wearing a wig.
Strength measured as randomly generated number.
25% of 9 women tested.
Avatar Fab - Friday 17th July, 2009 10:10
I think if anyone claimed to have tested 25% out of 9 people, you could probably actually prove a case for false advertising. 9 cannot be divided by 4 therefore they could not have tested 2 and a quarter people to get that figure! Or I would be very interested to know where they got that quarter from!

You don't actually believe adverts do you??
Avatar Robert - Friday 17th July, 2009 11:37
The incorrect percentage was intentionally chosen :)

And not usually, but it does help if they don't have to declare when they're cheating.
© Robert Nicholls 2002-2024
The views and opinions expressed on this site do not represent the views of my employer.
HTML5 / CSS3